Does anyone Recognize this Pension Fund?

LizMac42

I read a financial newspaper article recently which said:


"Scottish Widows' defined contribution (DC) default fund has returned the best performance for workplace pension savers over the the last five years, according to data. ...
Scottish Widows delivered best return at 12.5 per cent over five years. The fund has 85 per cent of its assets invested in shares.4 Oct 2017 "


I can't find a fact sheet for this fund on Trustnet or other performance charts. Does anyone know what it is and give any link on where I can find information. I rang Scottish Widows but they gave me a link to Scottish Widows Consensus Funds Series 3 which didn't mention the above best performing fund anywhere???
Than you in anticipation of any reply.

dunstonh

The fund has 85 per cent of its assets invested in shares.

Well that's your reason then. Most default funds tend to be closer to 60% shares. The higher the equity weighting in a growth period, the greater the gains will be.

The sector has funds covering 40-85% equity. So, a fund with 85% equity is at the top end of the risk scale for that sector and would obviously have better growth.

I just looked at sector returns over 5 years and Aviva, Nest and Aegon had the top 5 spots over 5 years. SW had the consensus fund and mixed fund in that sector but were not near the top with those.

The SW Pension portfolio funds are in the specialist sector and you totally ignore sector performance in that one as it is catchall for funds that dont fit other sectors and you have all sorts of risks.

Scottish Widows delivered best return at 12.5 per cent over five years.

For 5 years to 2017 that sounds low. Unless they missed the p.a. tag.

cloud_dog

dunstonh wrote: »

For 5 years to 2017 that sounds low. Unless they missed the p.a. tag.

Or, it was 125%.

It's not like newspapers to get their facts incorrect. (tongue > cheek)

Linton

See https://www.ftadviser.com/auto-enrolment/2017/10/04/data-uncovers-best-performing-workplace-pension-fund/ for the original article dating from October 2017. For a later article see:https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2018/04/25/best-and-worst-auto-enrolment-pensions-revealed/ where it references SW Pension Portfolio 2.


However it seems a pretty meaningless comparison as it is purely based on the funds the companies are promoting for the default for auto-enrolment. The SW fund appears to be higher risk at about 85% equity whilst the NOW pension which is at the bottom of the comparison list is in the 20%-60% equity sector and so far more cautious.

Linton

dunstonh wrote: »

Well that's your reason then. Most default funds tend to be closer to 60% shares. The higher the equity weighting in a growth period, the greater the gains will be.

The sector has funds covering 40-85% equity. So, a fund with 85% equity is at the top end of the risk scale for that sector and would obviously have better growth.

I just looked at sector returns over 5 years and Aviva, Nest and Aegon had the top 5 spots over 5 years. SW had the consensus fund and mixed fund in that sector but were not near the top with those.

The SW Pension portfolio funds are in the specialist sector and you totally ignore sector performance in that one as it is catchall for funds that dont fit other sectors and you have all sorts of risks.


For 5 years to 2017 that sounds low. Unless they missed the p.a. tag.

It is per annum.

LizMac42

Thanks for the replies above - it has given me some information but am a bit worried about the high risk comment. My son has the SW Pension Portfolio 2 which I think is one of those default funds. He also had the Scottish Widows Stakeholder and was looking to combine the funds into the best one.

Prism

It is Pension Portfolio 2 they are talking about. Scottish Widows gave a presentation at my wife's workplace and used the same stats. However what I don't understand is that this portfolio is new and didn't exist from what I can tell before this year so there is no evidence of those figures.


Edit: ok so it has existed for a while but the figures don't add uo

https://www.trustnet.com/factsheets/p/qg30/pension-portfolio-two-pension-series-2

LizMac42

My son has had the SW Pension Portfolio 2 for a few years - he has about 20 years to go before retirement so I think this ma y be the one to consolidate the others into. He also has an Aegon Black Rock and two Standard Life that don't seem to be doing as well and have higher charges.

dunstonh

He also has an Aegon Black Rock and two Standard Life that don't seem to be doing as well and have higher charges.

Pensions do not perform. The funds held within them have the performance. SW have more dog funds than most providers. Aegon's blackrock funds would be trackers. Standard Life have a small to medium range of funds typically. You dont need to change pensions if the funds you want are available.

Linton

Prism wrote: »

It is Pension Portfolio 2 they are talking about. Scottish Widows gave a presentation at my wife's workplace and used the same stats. However what I don't understand is that this portfolio is new and didn't exist from what I can tell before this year so there is no evidence of those figures.


Edit: ok so it has existed for a while but the figures don't add uo

https://www.trustnet.com/factsheets/p/qg30/pension-portfolio-two-pension-series-2

The figures given in the original article date from 2017. In the past year we have had the worst performance for many years so the 3 and 5 year figures will have dropped significantly. If you look on morningstar (http://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/snapshot/snapshot.aspx?id=VAUSA05WCF&tab=1&InvestmentType=SA) you can get performance data going back 7 years and calculate your own 3 and 5 year data. It wont match exactly because of course the exact date will make some difference.

Sheriff_Fatmen

Sorry to resurrect an old thread but.....
I've just started looking into the other halfs' workplace pension & it is SW Pension Portfolio Two Series.  I'm quite surprised by the 85:15 split and when I look at the Dec' 2019 fact sheet it seems more like 90:10 now, with UK bias up to 27.5%.  Can anyone clarify why, for a 'default-medium-risk-type-pension', they are running with such high risk?  And also, with UK equities at 27.5% and US equities at 14.2% why would they be choosing to run it so differently to the sector allocation in the revered Vanguard lifestrategy funds?